I was recently reading two books that addressed historical changes in two groups of very different sizes: the entire United States versus a medium sized suburb. Is one easier to examine or understand compared to the other?

The one looking at hundreds of years of history in what became the United States cannot go into as much depth. The scholar who wrote the history makes clear statements regarding how they interpret broad patterns. They highlight key moments, people and groups, and places.
Does this mean it is easier to study one community? The scholarly work about the history of one suburb – with a primary on just a few decades – has more details. But the author states that they cannot fully represent the history of the community given all the different perspectives and experiences there. And they also clearly make their own argument about how to interpret this history.
It is hard to compare two different works with such different goals: cover 500+ plus years of history on one topic in one large country and another primarily approaching several decades in the second half of the twentieth century in a medium sized suburb. Yet, they both are making claims. They argue they found things worth paying attention to. They say these findings can help us understand broader patterns.
Even as there are people who study both kinds of cases, my sense is that studies in recent years have more more to the smaller scale. Making big claims about broad sweeps of history requires a lot of work. If there are many stories on the local level, how many more are there with bigger cases.
In doing a little of each kind of work, I find they present their own difficulties. They have satisfying aspects; the details of a smaller case are interesting to understand while trying to uncover the patterns across a lot going on with a larger case is also interesting. They are different sorts of puzzles that can better help us understand what has happened and where we are now.









